Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 27, 1995CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 21, 1995 DIRECTION TO STAFF TO COMPOSE LETTER OF OPPOSITION REGARDING REMOVAL OF WOODBRIDGE DAM Council, on motion of Council Member Sieglock, Wamer second, directed staff to compose a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature to be sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding their recommendation to remove Woodbridge Dam, with copies of the letter routed to Assemblyman Bowler and Senator Johnston; and further directed staff to invite U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representatives to participate in a public hearing in the City of Lodi, by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Noes: Council Members Absent: Council Members - - Davenport, Pennino, Sieglock, Warner and Mann (Mayor) - None None Speaking in support of a letter of opposition from the Council were the following: 1. Bob Johnson, representing Lodi Parks and Recreation Commission. 2. Mary Miller, 710 Willow Glen Drive, Lodi. 3. Jerry Adams, representing Rivergate/Mokelumne Homeowners Association 4. Carrie Brown, Lodi District Chamber and Government Review Committee. 5. John Donadi, 1217 Edgewood Drive, representing the Willow Glen Property Owners Association. FILE NO. CC -7(d) and CC -27(c) E,ECcL','F ') t_-3 FH 2: C.9 Barbara Day 600 A South Central Ave #1 Lodi, Ca 95240 Dear Sir: Please save the Woodbridge Dam. I have lived in the Lodi area for 61 years and there has never been any problem with fish spawning and going back up the Mokelumne River due to the Woodbridge Dam. I realize that this issue is due to someone just wanting to get more water from the river for their own use. Please do not allow this to happen. As my nephew reflected, "Lodi Lake is the only decent, beautiful, and fun place that Lodi has ever had." PLEASE SAVE WOODBRIDGE DAM! Thank you. Sincerely, S. Capps Hoshour ~L-i,,,r-�-j 184 Rivergate Placec:Th Lodi, California 95240""`- r;r 2; i2 June 28, 1995 Mayor Steve Mann 221 West Pine Lodi, California 95240 Dear Mister Mayor: Down through the ages the earth has witnessed the extinction of probably hundreds of thousands of species of flora and fauna, and mankind has managed to survive and to appreciate that which nature did not remove. It is with no pride that we recall the near extinction of the buffalo and many other species simply because they got in the way. While I can on occasion support the efforts of environmentalists I do be- lieve that sometimes it appears they will not be satisfied until the earth returns to its natural state before the ar- rival of man. I wonder if this excessive view is manifested in the proposal to destroy the Woodbridge dam near Lodi. That thousands of acres of productive farmland and vineyards will be destroyed and the livelihood of those who till those fields destroyed, or that in defense of their crops they drill more wells, thus lowering even further an endangered ground water table and invite salination that just as surely will destroy their crops as lack of surface irrigation water; that beautiful Lodi Lake will be filled in and become playgrounds and base- ball diamonds with a parallel elimination of jobs and marked decrease in the -value of homes people worked hard to obtain and take pride and pleasure in; that all of these negatives will become reality because some dedicated but misdirected souls want to destroy a dam to increase the numbers of some fish would be absolutely ludicrous if the proponents were not serious. Is the Mokelumne the only California river that anadromous fish use? Does their migration stop at the Comanche dam? Why not tear down the Shasta Dam, Pardee, New Hogan, New Melones, Oroville dams and all other man made dams in Cal- ifornia, send all residents packing who cannot be supported by natural watersheds, and let the state return to the near desert state it used to be? Let the fish and all other wild- life dictate policy instead of the politicians and develop- ers (which really might not be a bad idea at that). Then without all of the swimming pools, especially those in Southern California (many of which are filled with Northern California water), perhaps a few more people could be al- lowed to stay. C'mon, let's get real. As preposterous as the above sugges- tion is, so is the proposal to demolish the Woodbridge dam. There are compromises. If the dams in this state do not have effective fish ladders or other devices to facilitate the up- stream migration of fish, why don't they? Cannot the fish that are the cause of concern be protected? Cannot the snow runoff in the spring be increased? If the fish using the Mokelumne do not increase, does this mean that they are in equal danger in most or all other rivers? And finally, measured against the negatives that destruction of the dam will cause, truly, how important is it that the Mokelumne fish increase in numbers? Please use whatever influence you have to see that the pro- posal gets well acquainted with a paper shredder. Thank you. Sincerely, S. Capps Hoshour CHESTER M. LOCKE P. O. Box 84 LOCKEFORD. CALIFORNIA PHONE 727.5555 June 21, 1995 U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service ?.90) Cottane 6.!a�. ron!� _-' fl31. Sacramento, CA 95 25 Gentlemen: 95 J'' `L -3 PN 2: 2 Your recent trial balloon about removing Uoodhri.dne dam should ret the reaction it deserves. The Lodi Lake is one of the mainstays of the town's recreation program, not to mention -ho hack -yard of numerous homes, as well as the water supply for 4000 acres of economically important vineyards .and diversified farms. Your position seems to indicate that there isn't the engineering available to construct suitable fish ladders to allow full passage of upstream headed fish if the present ones aren't doing the job. It is not a high dam. People will work together to solve reason- able problems, but won't take easily to govern - 7. -rt edicts of "this is the way it's going to ham". Why else have the recent elections indicated: "We have had our fill of dictator- ial government!" cc: Sincerely yours, ekoZ45?-4. ILA -- Chester M. Locke Lodi News Sentinel Stockton Record Lodi District Chamber of Commerce Jure 24, 1995 To hone it May Concern, I am writing to express my concern about the remonI!!Lof3t !• l ':Woodbridge Dam. My grandfather, George V. F•ec-_man contracted many years ago to put in the ditches to various farms for irrigation pur- poses. ITe and ot}'ers did s . '.pith teams of pules and a Fresno Scraper to scoop out the dirt and construct levees. The Lake was pr1.vatel7 owned by several people before the City of Lodi purchased it. My father, Sherwood Beckman used to rent the Lake bottom for sheep pasture. `fears later he served as President and Board Member of the Woodbridge Irrigation Dis- trict. The Lake is formed because of the Dam and has been an excell- ent recreational facility for Lodi and the surrounding area for many years. The Dam also is a flood control measure for the Mokelurine River - one of the many reasons it was built. It also makes irrigation possible for many farmers. Now that there is a real drop in the level of ground water because of the long drought, it is even more important to maintain. Our family has been conoern_edwith the .'aoodbridge Irrigation problems for many years. "y father was on the Chamber of Commerce ;rater and Irri-ation Committee and also the =Fater Commission for the `:tate of California. '"e helped fight for rnany years to keen the riparian rights and water rights to the Mokeluune River water, which was granted by the State of California. To remove this dam because it :night be possible to increase the fish population seems completely wrong. Yours truly, illard W. Beckman 135 South Fairmont Ave. Lodi, California 95240 Lodi District Grape Growers Association, Inc. OFFICERS Tom Hoffman President Lloyd Martel Vice President Chris Machado Secretary Joe A. Cotta Treasurer DIRECTORS Alan Kirschenmann Randall Lange Ted Leventini, Jr. Bob Schulenburg Kip Stoebner Craig Thompson Keith Watts 4:+:i e 0001:4; 4 _e P,O. BOX 2004 • LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-2004 • (209) 339-8246::.E., June 20, 1995 Mayor Steve Mann 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mr. Mann, r% Fre The Lodi District Grape Growers Association represents over 600 winegrape growers in this region, and speaks for an industry that presently includes over 45,000 acres. Clearly, the local winegrape industry, generating more than $150 million annually, is of vital importance to this area. On behalf of the membership of the Association, I wish to express my concern over the proposal to remove Woodbridge Dam to improve anadromous fish populations. The proposal would eliminate the ability of the Woodbridge Irrigation District to provide irrigation water to 400 farmers on the west side of Lodi, many of which farm over 4,000 acres presently in grape production. Removal of the dam would force these growers, and many others, to install new wells and pumps, causing further depletion of the already overdrawn underground aquifers. Apart from providing irrigation water, WID serves the entire community of.Lodi by keeping saltwater intrusion from contaminating our wells. Surface water applied to the ground filters down to the watertable. It is this continued recharge that keeps Lodi residents from experiencing the same saltwater contamination that has infected many wells in Stockton. Removing the dam at Woodbridge would be a serious mistake. It would have consequences that would affect Lodi residents and surrounding farmland. I urge you to join with us and oppose this proposal. Thank you for you consideration. Sincerely, Thomas Hoffman, President June 20. 1995 Steve Mann Lodi. Mayon 221 W. Pine St. Lodi, CA 95240 `:5.-i -3 PH RE: Anadnomows Fish and Restonat-ion ,in the Centtcae Vaeeey Dealt Mk. Mann We have head about the Study you ate conducting on anadnomous s.ish, It .cs out undetatand.ing that as a part ob this Study, you we recommending that the f'Joodbn.idga Dam be removed .in order to sac t tate an .incneaae .in anadnomous sish -Ln the Centnat Vaeley. This pnoposaL has. at least three advetrse .impacts on .the City os Lodi. FIRST is the economic .impact on .the gnape .Lndusttcy .in the Lodi/Woodbridge negLon. At the present time oven 4,000 acnes os vines ane being .ctvcigated in this neg.i.on. In 1994, the gross value os .the gnape .LndudttL.y and gelated industtri.es in San Joaquin County was oven. 152 mittian dottaAz. According to two recent studies, the Bank os America. Economic Study and .the U.C. Belckeeey Economic Study, 30% os outtotae .2ocae economy and 30% os a.22 £ocat jobs in the County ate detr ived Stam Agri.cuLtune, inc2udi.ng the wine/gnape industtr.y. Agn,icuttune, and espec&Ug the gnape industry, is one os the majora economic and job producing indru.,tni,es in Lodi. The propasa2 to remove the Woodbridge Dam would have a devastating economic .impact on the business community in Lodi. Any proposal that jeopatrd ize3 30% os the Focal economy as weft ad 30% o s £o ca e jobs must be subjected to nig onous s ctut.in y, and is it cannot be supported by ceean and convincing evidence as to its necessity, it must be rejected. I am opposed to any pnoposae that would produce such econam.i.c devastation to Lodi. The SECOND majora impact .us on .local pnopetrty values. In Lodi, the, e its a premien resi,den tat community, which is situated on the Moke2umne Rivet. Home owners have -invested subatantia.2 sums to purchase these exc2uw-ive homes, which pnov.i.de a unique qua. ty o5 .Eire because they ane situated on the rivet. Is the Woodbridge Dam is removed, these home owners would expetience dtast c neducti.ons -Ln thein pnopetuty vaeues because .the backyards would be converted to a to ge uns.ight&y mudho.2e. Atzo, the neat estate ,industry .in Lodi wowed aeso expetc.Lence an adverse economic .impact as a resw2t os the pnoposat to remove the Woodbridge Dam. The THIRD majora .impact os the pnaposa2 to remove the Woodbridge Dam is the v.itrtua2 destruction o5 Lodi, Lake, which is sed by the wa.tetua os the Moke2umne Riven. Lodi Lake is the main outdoor gathetc ing peace son the Lodi, community. It tis unique to the Lodi Park System, because it is the one.y take in the park system. IF the Woodbridge Dam .is removed, Lodi Loses an Jrtep/aceabte nectceation and community resource. A.ethough -Lt.6 economic .impact may be Meds than the ones mentioned above, its impact on the quaeity os £Lve .in this community cannot be emphasized enough. We wish to state out opposition to the p'oposa2 to remove the Woodbn.i.dge Dam. Removal o5 the Dam would cause majora adverse economic .impacts to the gnape .indus4tr.y, £ocat pnapetrty ownehs and the toss os a major recreation resource .in Lodi Lake. Fon aee these reason.,, WE OPPOSE the recommendations to remove WoodbnLdge Dam. Cordiatt y, 5749 Kile Road Lodi, California 95242 June 26, 1995 Mayor Steve Mann 221 W. Pine St. Lodi, California 95240 Dear Mayor Mann: In reference to the proposal to remove Woodbridge Dam: I am absolutely against it! Removing Woodbridge Dam would affect farming as well as Lodi city water services. Not only would fanners have to contend with the stiff regulations in digging wells, but it would also accelerate the depletion of the underground water table. In addition, this move would greatly harm the many recreational benefits of Lodi Lake park. There must be another way to encourage the growth of the fish population. Sincerely, Josephine Howard (Grape Grower) STATE CAPITOL P.O. BOX4cA85Erit�tig' SACRAMENTO, CA RA94249-0001 (916) 445-7402 1r�i� Ir r 71:Legislattxrr DISTRICT OFFICE rr0Fti Ei 1Q.Ia1tfornta 10370 OLD PLACERVILLE ROAD "l� SUITE 1„ a 2: 4O LARRY BOWLER SACRAMENTO,,C CA 9582 I j l PM ) (916) 362.4161 ASSEMBLYMAN, TENTH DISTRICT July 6, 1995 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE 2800 Cottage Way Room E-1831 Sacramento, CA 95825 Re: Woodbridge Dam, Lodi, California Gentlemen: COMMITTEES: BANKING & FINANCE EDUCATION UTILITIES & COMMERCE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. RETIREMENT & SOCIAL SECURITY I would like to convey my emphatic disapproval and dismay with your recent study that proposes, in part, the destruction of the Woodbridge Dam to enhance anadromous fish populations. Local feedback I have received on your proposal ranges from a keen displeasure with the irreplaceable loss of Lodi Lake, a unique recreational resource, described by one resident as Lodi's "Crown Jewel"; the potential crippling effect upon local agriculture, including 4,000 acres of vineyards, which constitute one third of the local economy, and the corresponding devaluation of lakeside and riverfront real estate, built to predominantly feature the waterway. As an agency of the government empowered with the important management and preservation of our natural resources and wildlife, you are entrusted with an awesome responsibility. It is incumbent upon you, therefore, in conducting your duties and in submitting studies and proposals, such as this one, to act in an equitable fashion. Understand that the impact of your decision will profoundly effect the Lodi community. I implore you to reasonably weigh the benefits and burdens, to both the environment and the public, of your actions. Those of us in government are obligated to "serve the public", we must endeavor to keep the public good foremost in our minds. On the behalf of the citizens of Lodi, I beseech you to consider the adverse impact that removing Woodbridge Dam would have on the local community. PrnreC Crt Aecyc:ed Paper Page 2 Woodbridge Dam Letter Thank you for your time and careful consideration of my input on this most important .matter. Please contact me should you wish to discuss it further. i/hcerely, Y fl B LER Assembly than 10th District LB:am cc: Lodi City Councilmembers Lodi Chamber of Commerce Lodi Board of Realtors July 7, 1995 • I J i Q-7 (ill Schaffer Suess %Better R leo U, yiiHomes k y REALTORS® 1 1 1 land Gardense 12 P4 l:5 R Mr. Roger Dunn U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, Ca 95825 Dear Mr. Dunn: Your proposal to remove the 100 year old Mokelumne River dam at Woodbridge surely must be a flight of fancy for the department. No measurable benefit has been offered and great harm to the economic and social life of this community would occur. The lake is the summertime center piece for recreation in the area and water behind the dam filling canals provide irrigation to fully one third of the areas farmland. Weighed against the unsupported and unprovable allegation that fish count would increase, only one sensible action seems possible. Leave the dam alone. Don't try to fix what is not broken or leave us to cope with the Departments misjudgment. This system has functioned well for 100 years to the benefit of agriculture, recreation and Fish and Game. Leave the dam alone. = P.O. Box 667 Lodi, California 95241 (209) 368.5311 P.O. Box 365 Galt, California 95632 2091 745-3039 ® MLS ac• - t V F f�i i.j , r - 13 Pt1 2: 5. July 7, 1995 Attention: Roger Dunn US Fish & Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way Room E-1831 Sacramento, CA 95825 Dear Mr. Dunn: Kirk N. Robinson Robinson Development 249 Royal Oaks Court Lodi, CA 95240-0551 (209) 369-1932 As a concerned home owner, property owner and business owner in the city of Lodi, I would like to voice my vehement protest to the dismantling of the Woodbridge Dam. The Mokelumne River is the jewel of Lodi. Without it, property values here would dramatically decrease and Lodi would suffer a very substantial negative impact on its total economic picture. Industry in Lodi consists mainly of farming/agriculture, which would greatly diminish without the water provided by the Woodbridge Dam. The entire San Joaquin Valley would definitely suffer financially and economically and the resulting ripples would be felt in ever -widening circles. Perhaps it does not bear mentioning that my childhood memories are filled with pictures of wonderful days at the Mokelumne, nor that my children now greatly enjoy its benefits, and that I have always imagined that my grandchildren would also. I realize that we must consider the safety and continued existence of each and every specie of fish and other wildlife in our immediate area and far-reaching areas, but I feel that the benefits provided by the Woodbridge Dam for the community near the Mokelumne River far, far outweigh the possibly negative effects on any one specie of wildlife. Please consider my voice along with other letters you have received and will receive as standing in favor of keeping the Woodbridge Dam as it has been for so many years. Thank you. Sincerely, fsee J� irk N. Robinson cc: Rep R.Pombo, Sen P.Johnston, Assmn L.Bowler, Co Sup G.Barber, Lodi Mayor S.Mann July 7, 1995 : , r C E ' V L EI 5 Y PH 3: C Attention: Roger Dunn US Fish & Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way Room E-1831 Sacramento, CA 95825 Dear Mr. Dunn: Craig J. Schmidt 344 Robin Lane Galt, CA 95632 (209) 745-0290 I have recently become aware of the proposal for dismantling the Woodbridge Dam. Both my wife and myself have lived in and around the city of Lodi all of our lives, as did our parents and families. I am greatly concerned about the effect on the entire area from this unbelievable proposal. The agriculture in Lodi would suffer greatly without the water provided by the Woodbridge Dam. Prices of grapes and therefore wines and all other types of crops would rise immediately because of increased water costs to the farmers. Property values would go down immediately because there would no longer be water -front property along the Mokelumne River. Our cherished Lodi Lake, where we have spent countless days picnicing, boating, waterskiing, etc., would be non-existent. I wonder if you have personally visited our city? Are you personally involved in the area which would be directly affected by the proposal? I challenge you to come to our area with your family, to stop by a roadside stand to purchase some of the fruits and vegetables grown in our area for a picnic, to visit Lodi Lake and to walk along the Mokelumne River in the Wilderness Area there, observing the people and the wildlife side by side benefitting from the increased water flow provided by the Woodbridge Dam. These benefits are very substantial and should be heavily weighed in considering this proposal. Please consider my voice along with other letters you have received and will receive as standing in favor of keeping the Woodbridge Dam as it has been for so many years. Thank you. Sincerely, j1 CraigJ. .vidt cc: Rep R.Pombo, Sen P.Johnston, Assmn L.Bowler, Co Sup G.Barber, Lodi Mayor S. Mann REPLY TO: 0 CAPITOL OFFICE .00M 5066 STATE CAPITCL SACRAMENTO C.. 35814 916'4452407 DISTRICT OFFICES C 31 E CHANNEL S7SEET 800M 440 STOCKTON CA 95202 2091948.7930 ,209 948-7993 •] 1C20 N STREET A'3OM 504 SACRAMENTO CA 38814 9'6,3234306 749 ,916. 327 8729 SENATE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE r'1 SENATOR PATRICK JOHNSTON FIFTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT SERVING SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COUNTIES July 14, 1995 Mr. H. Dale Hall Assistant Regional Director Ecological Services, Region 1 U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service 911 N.E. llth Avenue Portland, Oregon, 97232 COMMITTEES: APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENOMENTS INSURANCE LOCAL GOVERNMENT .NATURAL RESOURCES & WILDLIFE TRANSPORTATION In Re: PROGRAM WORKING PAPER ON ADADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT Dear Mr. Hall: This refers to the above referenced Working Paper, with specific emphasis on your memorandum of April 27, 1995 which addressed "reasonable efforts" considerations in the develop- ment of this program. First of all, I am disappointed as the State Senator representing the region that will be effected by this Program that my office was not informed of this Project from its inception, although numerous notices of meetings were sent to other Interested Parties. I am now in possession of copies of the Working Paper developed by the restoration program's Core Group (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, National Marine Fisheries Service, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Fish and Game and the California Department of Water Resources). This working Paper sets forth a number of proposed restoration action relative to increasing the survival of salmonid life stages in the lower Mokelumne River. Of particular note is Proposed Action No. 7 (set forth in Volume III, pages 3-xc-70,71), which outlines as an option the removal of the Woodbridge Dam. Such an option is simply unacceptable. Such action would be bad public policy based on bad science. An example of such bad science is contained in the Working Paper itself. As a justification for the removal of the Woodbridge Dam the paper states, "...in Sprina 1993. striped bass were a.ttrar:ted to the base of the Woodbridae Dam (EBMUD 1994). Based on analysis of striped bass stomach contents. diver surveys. T751417D hiq.1gaist estimate that between 11 to 51% of the 1993 salmon smolt production was lost to striped bass predation (Boyd 1994)." Using a one year survey with a 40% estimate spread of fish loss is not by any acceptable standards of biological research, good science. Also, in the same section the report states that Predicted benefits (emphasis in report) of removal of the Woodbridge Dam would be the "entire" elimination of predation problems and that such elimination would improve salmonid smolt survival by 10%. There is no scientific support, in the Working Paper, for such a conclusion. Furthermore, it is puzzling how one can extrapolate a "10% improvement" as a benefit sufficient to justify the removal of a dam that has been on the Mokelumne River for 100 years. A bit of history is in order. Since the Woodbridge Dam was constructed there have been numerous historical records of "teeming" salmon spawnings on the Mokelumne well east of the Woodbridge Dam. These accounts preceded the construction of the Camanche and Pardee Dams by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. It is therefore difficult to attribute the decline in salmon to the presence of the Woodbridge Dam. The Woodbridge Dam is an integral part of the irrigation canal system operated by the Woodbridge Irrigation District. It provides irrigation water to 4,000 acres of vineyards in the area. The removal of the dam would also result in the elimination of Lodi Lake Park, since the lake is a created by the Woodbridge Dam. This Park is a virtual oasis for Lodians and other residents of San Joaquin County. Although representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have stated that Action Item No.7, along with other Action Items, are merely part of a Working Paper that has not been adopted, I urge your prompt deletion of Item No. 7 from further consideration. It is ill-conceived and ill-advised. If there are further public hearings on this project i wish to be informed of such, as well as kept advised of any changes or recommendations in the Working Paper. Sincerely yours, PATRICK JOHNSTON FIFTH SENATE DISTRICT PJ:ris cc: Mr. Marty Kjelson Sacramento/San Joaquin Estuary Fishery Resource Office U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 4001 N. Wilson Way Stockton, California Mr. Roger Dunn U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Restoration Program 2800 Cottage Way, Rm E-1831 Sacramento, California RIVER ATE OXELUMNE HOMEOWNER SZOCIATION June 21, 1995 Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1831 Sacramento, CA 95825 To whom it may concern: COp? As President of the Rivergate-Mokelumne Homeowners Association I am writing on behalf of our association to STRONGLY PROTEST your proposal to remove the Woodbridge Dam. This action will dramatically affect water levels to a subdivision of homes which have been on the Mokelumne River for years and have c lagoon waterway which is fed by the Mokelumne River. The removal of the Woodbridge Dam would reduce the lagoon area to a °large mud -hole". The net result would be loss of property values, damage to existing bulkheads and fountains, cnd an uncontrollable access point to the backyards of numerous homes. The inevitable standing water of lagoon drainage would create an attractive habitat for mosquitos, rodents and pests of several types. The seventy-one homeowners of the Rivergate Mokelumne Homeowners Association urge your careful consideration of this matter and recommend the Woodbridge Dam be left intact! If I can provide further assistance of information, please do not hesitate to call me at (209) 333-6726. Sincerely, Jerry AdeMs, President Rivergate Mokelumne Homeowners Association Lodi, CA 95240 cc: Representative Richard Pombo 2321 W. March Ln., #205 Stockton, CA 95207 Assemblyman Larry Bowler 10370 Old Placerville #106 Sacramento, CA 95827 City of Lodi Mayor Steve Mann 221 W. Pine St. Lodi, CA 95240 Post Office Box 791, State Senator Pat Johnson 31 E. Channel St. #440 Stockton, CA 95202 Supervisor George Berber 222 E. Weber, Room 701 Stockton, CA 95202 Homeowners Association Rivergate Mokelumne P.O. Box 791, Lodi, CA 95241 Lodi, California 95241-0791 Tf1T0I P r11 Bob Andersen 1915 Lakeshore Drive Lodi, CA 95242 Friday, June 16, 1995 Mayor Steve Mann 221 W. Pine Street Lodi CA 95240 Dear Steve: ED) 209-948-8023 Days • 209-483-8545 Portable • 209=334'-i 2S4! Ekes!• F4-1547 fax The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service' proposal to remove Woodbridge Dam is absurd. It is a way of life for area residents, and we will not tolerate such a proposal. Sincerely, t. r. r'i nr LO FI.1 1:21 June 21, 1995 Mayor Steve Mann City of Lodi 221 W. Pine Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mr. Mann: I find it hard to believe the Fish and Wildlife Service, or anyone else for that matter, could possibly think up such a completely absurd idea as to do away with the Woodbridge Dam. This is typical of the whole environmental movement, absolutely no concern for all the human beings that would be affected by this hair -brained scheme. The loss of water to irrigate thousands of acres of farmland and the lowering of the water table that thousands of people's very lives depend on would be totally devastating. Which is more important --people or the fish, which may or may not be affected by the dam anyway? arman V. Guth' ie #1 - a resident of the area #2 - a farmer in the area 11522 North Ham Lane Lodi, CA 95242 R1VERGATE OKELUMNE HOMEOWNER! 3SOC AT1ON June 21, 1995 Fish and Wildlife Service `:15 "t? 26 Pil I: 23 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1831:,-. Sacramento, CA 95825 To whom it may concern: As President of the Rivergate-Mokelumne Homeowners Association I am writing on behalf of our association to STRONGLY PROTEST your proposal to remove the Woodbridge Dam. This action will dramatically affect water levels to a subdivision of homes which have been on the Mokelumne River for years and have a lagoon waterway which is fed by the Mokelumne River. The removal of the Woodbridge Dam would reduce the lagoon area to a "large mud -hole". The net result would be loss of property values, damage to existing bulkheads and fountains, and an uncontrollable access point to the backyards of numerous homes. The inevitable standing water of lagoon drainage would create an attractive habitat for mosquitos, rodents and pests of several types. The seventy-one homeowners of the Rivergate Mokelumne Homeowners Association urge your careful consideration of this matter and recommend the Woodbridge Dam be left intact! If I can provide further assistance of information, please do not hesitate to call me at (209) 333-6726. Sincerely, (i ... Jerry Adams, President Rivergate Mokelumne Homeowners Association Lodi, CA 95240 cc: Representative Richard Pombo 2321 W. March Ln., #205 Stockton, CA 95207 Assemblyman Larry Bowler 10370 Old Placerville #1061 Sacramento, CA 95827 City of Lodi Mayor Steve Mann 221 W. Pine St. Lodi, CA 95240 State Senator Pat Johnson 31 E. Channel St. #440 Stockton, CA 95202 Supervisor George Barber 222 E. Weber, Room 701 Stockton, CA 95202 Homeowners Association Rivergate Mokelumne P.O. Box 791, Lodi, CA 95241 Post Office Box 791, Lodi, California 95241-0791 I